Talk:Star Trek: The Original Series/archive
Episode Prod Numbers Hey. Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this, but if you look at the episode list of TOS, at the end of the first season it says Operation-- Annihilate! is 030. If you look at the second season Catspaw is also 030. If it's a typo could someone elso fix it. I thought I'd screw it up. As it is the only reason I noticed is cause my episode list is in the order the episodes were made in. -- IndyaCD3 (signed by Sulfur since it was unsigned, but the edit prior to mine) :The reason is because the Menagerie, Parts 1 and 2 were marked as 16 + 17. Since they were all done at the same time, I renumbered those to 16A and 16B which brings the rest of the numbers are in line now in the other two seasons. -- Sulfur 18:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Reverted edits *Memory Alpha editing policy discourages putting links in header lines -- i've been trying to remove it, but people seem to want to continuously revert the style ::That's because it's a good policy to have links in subtitles, if there is a definitive article on that subject elsewhere. It is a clear simple way to signal "this is not the right article to go into depth in this" without having to say that in clunky prose. *Numerical lists seem necessary to me because the individual episode pages now include seasonxepisode notation (4x20) etc, and this makes it easier to reference them back to the season article in that manner *The season lists are groups of links which are not prone to need edits anymore, as such, since they are duplicated on a few separate pages, are best represented by templates. *There was originally no reference in some series articles to the following links: NBC, UPN, Paramount Pictures, ILM, etc -- these topics should be listed with the series they apply to. I'm suggesting adding them to a browser table, but i am open to suggestions, as long as these topics are acknowledged in the article somewhere. Please do not remove links to things if they don't fit your idea of how the article should be structured just because you don't like the idea of a browser table there, you shouldn't start reverting edits and removing links to these topics, orphaning some of the articles. If you wish to suggest rearranging what I did, do so, but it was a poor choice of a preliminary move to simply remove all of my changes out of hand. I'm open to suggestions from all users of course, how this information should be arranged, or to discuss removal of irrelevant information. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:43, 31 Mar 2005 (EST) Missing production info There's a LOT of important production information not here, and generally Memory Alpha lacks a lot of stuff that matters from a production and design point of view, probably again by policy. But really, people DO want to know, somewhere, somehow: *who played who *who designed the sets *who composed what music *who designed the amazing dresses that look like they're about to fall off the girls *who was the guy at NBC who decided the dresses had to stay up At least ONE good article on Federation fashion trends, please, to talk about things like pointed sideburns and miniskirts and beehive hair. It's just way too much fun not to invent rationales for why TOS looks like the 60s and TNG looks like the 80s... ;-) Time Span I had no idea the TOS series was set in 2265-2269, I was sure it was something like 2266-2267/8. Where was this info found? (Other then the VOY ep I mean, where was it found that the series is that time period?) Terran Officer April 23, 2006 11:13 AM (EST) :We know that the five year mission of Kirk ended in 2270, from the Voyager comment. :*2270 minus 5 equals 2265. The way the episodes are spaced out between those years is open for interpretation, but the Star Trek Chronology suggested that the episodes produced in 1966-1969 took place between 2266-2269. makes sense. :*"The Trouble with Tribbles" date was specified as being 105 years before the DS9 epsode "Trials and Tribbleations", taking place in 2373 :**2373 minus 105 equals 2268. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC) A Prequel? Ok, so on a message board I like to go to, someone is aruging (With definitions from a dictionary I might add) that this series naritive is a prequel to TNG/DS9/VOY, I don't know if I would go that far. I would call the other series are sequals. Terran Officer April 23, 2006 7:46 PM (EST) :Um... a prequel is only a prequel if it was made AFTER a show or movie but was set BEFORE that film or movie. For example, Star Wars: Episode I is a prequel to Star Wars: Episode VI because the former was made after the latter. X-Men is not a prequel to X-Men 2, however, because X-Men was made first. That said, what does this have to do with the artice? --From Andoria with Love 00:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Nothing, I guess apologise if I made this in the wrong area, I just wasn't sure where else to go, thought this site the best place to go. Thanks for answering my question. Terran Officer April 23, 2006 8: 24 PM (EST) :No need to apologize. I was actually being lighthearted about it, I just forgot the little smiley at the end. Anyways, I guess this would be an okay place to ask this since it would be good background info if the series were considered a prequel, but since it can't be a prequel, well... there ya go. :) --From Andoria with Love 03:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Remastered episodes and Canon I was just wondering if the original versions of the episodes are more canonical than the remastered ones. For example, the planet in I, Mudd suddenly got rings when it was remastered, but not in the original. Which is canon?--Tiberius 23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC) : If we are going by the viewpoint of the studio, I think the remastered episodes are now the official versions of those events. -- StAkAr Karnak 00:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC) ::Memory Alpha's stance has been, and should continue to be, discussed in Ten Forward. The existing thread is at Forum:New TOS VfX and other tweaks. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC) :::If we are going by the viewpoint of the studio, TAS is not canon. :) -- Sulfur 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC) ::::This doesn't seem to be a question about "MA's stance" - rather, about the studio's stance. In that case, you may choose between "both" and "they don't care, anyway"... ;) -- Cid Highwind 07:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Episode dates? What is the source for the episode years? 24.158.130.161 06:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC) :Their original source were reference books such as the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Star Trek Chronology. The dates in these references were derived from references in the films, and was apparently used by production personnel on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine when making the episode "Trials and Tribble-ations" since they set the events of the original series episode "The Trouble with Tribbles" 105 years before the DS9 episode (set in 2373). Lastly, the Star Trek: Voyager episode established that James T. Kirk's first five-year mission (as seen on TOS) ended in 2270. This means that the original series was set between 2265 and 2270. Hope all that helps. :) --From Andoria with Love 11:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC) To Go Boldly It has recently been added that "To boldly go where no man has gone before" is grammatically incorrect, however, according to http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/059.html it seems fine because the reason for split infinitives being wrong is because infinitives are one word in Latin. You thoughts? By the way, I used to be 24.158.130.161. - 16:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC) DVD's when will the digitally remastered Original Series be on DVD? :The last I heard, it will be sometime in Fall of this year. Let me check on that though just to be sure there haven't been any changes or exact release dates announced... --From Andoria with Love 21:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC) :Okay, Trek Remastered "will be released on combo DVD/HD-DVD disks by fourth quarter 2007"... keep in mind, though, that the episodes released on these disks will be the first 29 of the original series first season; that means it won't include the likes of "The Doomsday Machine", "Amok Time" and what-not. That's the latest news on this topic; for more see this page here. --From Andoria with Love 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Page Move? Shouldn't this page be renamed "Star Trek (The Original Series)", more accurately reflecting its title at the time of transmission and formatting it to the method used by almost every article on MA? It would seem to be more accurate than "Star Trek':' The Original Series"! --Defiant 12:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC) I left this question on the relevant talk page but, as it has not been replied, I'm posting it here! Shouldn't the page at "Star Trek: The Original Series" be renamed (and moved to) "Star Trek (The Original Series)", more accurately reflecting its title at the time of transmission and formatting it to MA's page-naming method? It would seem to be more accurate than "Star Trek'':'' The Original Series"! --Defiant 14:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC) :I agree Rodney McKay 19:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC) ::Alas, the current official title for the series is Star Trek: The Original Series. We should stick with the official title. --From Andoria with Love 04:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Cool! I wasn't aware of this. What makes it "official"? --Defiant 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC) :::Chiming in a little late... Generally, we use a "qualifier" in parentheses if two different entities share the same "natural title" and no other title can be found for either one of them. In this case, we do have a good other title for the series. It is in widespread use (including even the official website itself), well-known and allows for all six series articles to have similar titles. :::I think the article should stay where it is - although you might want to add a redirect, if you think it's important. -- Cid Highwind 21:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Redirect has been added -- Rodney McKay 21:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC) ::In response to Defiant: Maybe "official" wasn't the best term, but the title does at least seem to be official. CBS (and formerly Paramount) has been referring to Star Trek as The Original Series (or TOS) for quite some time. Even the DVD releases (and, I believe, the VHS releases as well) are packaged with the name Star Trek: The Original Series. The official site also refers to it as such (http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TOS/index.html). --From Andoria with Love 06:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC) :::I thought I would add that there is a lot of stuff that still uses just "Star Trek". In most TV line-ups (including CBS) and schedules, it is "Star Trek", not "Star Trek: The Original Series". Just thought I would throw that out into this "official" debate. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC) History as seen from The Original Series Before I am criticized, yes, I know the history changed with TNG. However, I thought it might be interesting to see how the historical events in the original fitted before the revisions. I am assuming for this exercise that Kirk commanded the Enterprise from 2194 to 2198, based on the predilection that 200 years after 1996 is 2196 ("Space Seed") and that episode is set two years after Kirk assumed command. Here it goes: :1959 Zefram Cochrane is born. (Metamorphosis) :1992 Eugenics War begins. (Space Seed) :1994 SS Valiant disappears. (Where No Man Has Gone Before) :1996 Khan flees Earth.(Space Seed) :2018 Sleeper ships are retired. (Space Seed) :2046 Cochrane vanishes. (Metamorphosis) :2096 Earth-Romulan War. (Balance of Terror) :2162 James Kirk is born. (The Deadly Years) :2194 James Kirk assumes command of the USS Enterprise. (The Menagerie) According to the Animated Episode (The Infinite Vulcan), the Federation is founded an hundred years before the episode, or circa 2098. Several points are important to note: 1. Zefram Cochrane lived in the era of the Eugenics Wars. 2. Warp drive may have been invented as a result of a government project during the wars, just as in the Second World War, there were introduced atomic bombs, jets, and advanced rocketry. 3. The timeline diverged from our real world timeline in the years following the aforementioned WW II.--Airtram3 08:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC) : I find your logic flawed. The 200 year figure was an estimate, Kirk was holding onto the idea of it being a DY500. Do not forget, in human language 200 years could be 150+ to -250 years. well more likely 240 years. Example, "The civil war was about 150 years ago." But if you go look at the current date, and the date of the Civil war it is more then 150 years ago, but I don't know the exact date, so I chose one that is close, but round. In Star Trek, the best figure is an odd one like "47 years". Since your calendar is built so rigidly around the 200 year figure, your dates are inaccurate. --TOSrules 08:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC) How do I put this gently, as I loath literal minded people? This is a fun exercise, compiling approximate data values and arriving at a general view of history. It is not meant to be a literal truth, nor should it ever be. Why can't you look beyond your literalness and see a pattern? Since you are incapable of seeing beyond your limited horizons, here is the history in your terms (everything approximate): All events predate TOS:-235 years: Zefram Cochrane is born:-200 years: Eugenics Wars, SS Valiant disappears; -148 years: Cochrane disappears; -100 years: Earth-Romulan War; and -32 years: James Kirk born. Now, do you see a pattern, or would you like me to simplifiy it further for you?--Airtram3 09:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC) : On those terms, I don't understand how this helps. --TOSrules 09:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC) I have read your page, and I feel you are arrogant and unpleasant. I feel you seek confrontation. I played your game, but it ends now.--Airtram3 09:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC) : Well then I apologies, and respect your opinion. --TOSrules 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Accepted.--Airtram3 21:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC) :: Now now, this is no place for bickering. Simply put, the years TOS took place in were intentionally left ambiguous, and to some extent, Airtram does have a point. Consider the point of view of this website if this was 1975 and TOS was still a single parent to a bastard child (TAS), and you used only the dialog references made in those series, there would be some credence to this timeline. In fact, the Star Trek Concordance (a forefather of this very website, if you will) makes a few subtle references to TOS/TAS taking place in or around the 22nd century. Here are a couple other points: ::* It was stated that Lincoln "died three centuries ago, hundreds of light-years away." 1865+300=2165 ("The Savage Curtain") ::* Kirk being told that he was going to be locked up for "200 years" and him replying "That ought to be just about right." 1968+200=2168 ("Tomorrow is Yesterday") :: That's an awful lot of coincidentally bad estimating, if you want to play that card. So, before TNG ever came along, how could/can we make the assumption that "in human language 200 years could be 150+ to -250 years", when a majority of the "estimates" indicate otherwise? With that said, I'm really not sure where this is supposed to go since TNG and ENT did happen and made all the points above more or less null and void... --Alan del Beccio 01:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC) ::I feel that as we write the history based on the later series, we are not seeing how the revised hisotry has changed the timeline as set in the original. By comparing the two, I believe we can enhance our understanding of the new timeline and see both its strengths and weaknesses. The function of an encyclopedia is more than the recording of facts; it is the analysis of those facts and how they relate to a larger picture.--Airtram3 02:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC) My EE Calendar was formed to circumvent this problem. Although I didn't use it to place the date of the series, but rather separate the debate of how much time passes in the series, and what the date is. It shifts the debate to not when did this episode happen, or that episode happen, but simply what is the date of EE0. The Exploration Era(EE) Calendar can be found and explained on this site here (http://supernovawd.netfirms.com/Timelines/Calander.htm). In my opinion it follows your idea, but is more useful in it's approach. --TOSrules 03:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC) From Talk:Split infinitive Do we really need this article when this could just be in background notes? (As they previously were) Plus, a majority of the article seems to be 'essay' or 'report'-like. - Enzo Aquarius 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC) :Well, the original background note was rather one-sided and expressed a personal opinion rather than a fact. Also, it didn't really belong in the TOS trivia section, since both TOS and TNG employ the split infinitive in their openings. Wratched 16:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC) ::So fix the existing background note, and add new ones to the others. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC) :::Quite so indeed. Nonetheless, if this article stays, it has been properly formatted. - Enzo Aquarius 16:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC) ::::Looks nice. Still, I don't mind if you think this article should be scrapped. Wratched 16:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC) :::::I think this article may have some merit by itself now, it's quite extensive and it's been deorphanized. - Enzo Aquarius 16:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC) ::::::While the page is certainly better formatted, I don't think it belongs here. It's only reason for existence is because a line spoken in the opening narrative of TOS/TNG is a split infinitive. Big whoop. That is all a split infinitive has to do with Star Trek, and it is a topic of little to no significance – nobody's going to do a search for split infinitive and this is an encyclopedia for information directly related to Trek, not a dictionary for terms that some people feel might have something to do with the franchise. We're not going to start creating articles on grammatical terms and then relate them to Star Trek, noting what they got right and what they got wrong. You might as well drudge up an article discussing how "airponics" is used on-screen instead of "aeroponics", among similar insignificant details. At most, this info belongs as a minor background note on Star Trek: The Original Series, where it was originally. So, let's all regain our sanity and get rid of this page, shall we? --From Andoria with Love 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC) ::::::So... can we re-merge this back with the TOS page now? :D --From Andoria with Love 06:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC) ::It is the will of the Great Bird of the Galaxy. Let it be merged before we end up in his great list of wrath. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC) :::Meh, I don't feel like including this in the TCT. Nonetheless, I agree with the merge. :P - Enzo Aquarius 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC) ::::::Split infinitive has now been merged with Star Trek: The Original Series. Enjoy. --From Andoria with Love 05:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC) The "Wagon Train" Myth Gene Roddenberry, in many interviews, admitted to intentionally misrepresenting the series as "Wagon Train to the Stars" to increase his chances of selling it to network executives who (according to Gene) had a fixation on Westerns during the mid-sixties. Star Trek was never seriously patterned after "Wagon Train". This is an urban myth, and the comment should be struck from the series' description.--Tombstone 02:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * Not to mention, the reference is poorly done anyhow. A reference book is supposed to explain information, not make you go looking for more immediately. Granted, this is the web (so linkage is expected), but, regardless even of the veracity of the claim, you're introducing material that is confusing to the reader in the first paragraph of the article. If it *is* true, it should be rewritten. Date or Year reruns began (after original show canceled in 1969)?‎ Hi I'm writing a story about someone and it takes place a couple of years after Star Trek (original) is canceled. I need to know when the reruns began airing so that I can accurately say that the character watched the reruns (if they were airing) or not (if airing took place at a later date) Does anyone know the answer? If so please email the answer to: cinderedna2@yahoo.com Thanks-- 69.121.165.149 01:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)" :I believe they began the same year they were canceled – 1969. I'm relatively positive they were being rerun by 1970, though. --From Andoria with Love 04:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC) ::Can you tell us anything about your story? --WTRiker 00:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Spilt the Pages? As TOS-R has become it's own entity, I think we shoud have a "TOS" page and a "TOS-R" page and (maybe?) classify them as two different series so as to maintain the TOS page as a TOS only(66-69) page and have the TOS-R page as a TOS-R only (06-08) page. Whaddya think? (As a secondary note, trekmovie.com has the dates for the airings of "Season 2" of TOS-R. I have them all so how do I add them?) (As a tertiary note, on the TOS-R episode pages (if it becomes a separate entity, as I hope it will) maybe adding the new effects shots under the heading of "New Effects Shots" or something of that sort?) --WTRiker 00:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC) :Why would it become a separate entity? It's the same episode, just some redone effects? -- Sulfur 00:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC) ::Yes, but to preserve the "originality", for lack of a better term of the TOS I think the TOS-R should become separate. --WTRiker 00:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)